Make Bush donate Inauguration funds for diasaster relief.

[patcox2]

Bush has promised $15 million in aid, yet there may be over 100,000 dead in south asia. And that $15 million compares to his inauguration, which will cost $40 million.

Its disgusting to hold a $40 million party in the wake of such a disaster and so much suffering.

Make it a mantra, write to the editor of your paper, write to your congresspeople, Bush should cancel the parties and donate the $40 million to relief.

[stevebreeze]

1. how much did * give to FL for his reelection? oops I mean disaster relief

[Mistress Quickly]

2. the $15 mill and

the nine P3 reconnaissance aircraft and 12 C-130 transport planes loaded with relief goods.

source:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,11803670%255E1702,00.html

[xultar]

3. OK I wanna see the money. You know BFFE never follows through

The African AIDS $$$ still hasn't made it over yet.

[Mistress Quickly]

8. that's a fact n/t

[Zan_of_Texas]

4. Huh.

$15 million for tsunami, $40 million for Bush inauguration.

Huh. They're both disasters.

Tsunami: A large wave on the ocean, usually caused by an undersea earthquake, a volcanic eruption, or coastal landslide. A tsunami can travel hundreds of miles over the open sea and cause extensive damage when it encounters land. Also called tidal waves. Mobilize massive relief: restore clean water and hospital facilities, supply food and shelter.

Bush Inauguration: A large pox upon the globe, enabled by a quaking media and an underground eruption of thugs, ideological loons, arms merchants, and predatory resource pirates. The effects of a Bush Inauguration can travel thousands of miles and cause extensive damage; for example, depleted uranium alone will harm the land for 5 billion years. Mobilize massive relief: restore clean elections, supply spine to media while creating own media, and organize massive overground global vibration of citizens willing to fight for peace and justice.

[shady lane]

5. I don't think this will resonate

You wont like this but most in America believe we already give far more to disasters than any other country in the world.

If this becomes a message (to send the inaugeration money to relief) then the GOP will just publish the money amounts given by country and go after other countries own inaugeration spendings. It will backfire on is simply because the average American knows we already give far more than any other country in the world.

[patcox2]

9. Ooops, I misread you.

Yes, most yahoos and philistines think we give too much, but I don't care about the opinions of idiots.

The liberal media and the intellectual elites would eat the idea up. heh heh.

Its worth doing for no other reason than to spoil Bush's party.

[shady lane]

13. Source please

I truly think you are incorrect about aid in the world. I am certain that all the countries in the whole world barely add up to a fraction of what America donates, when you include the value of military jets for relief, troops to disburse it (like Somalia) etc.

Nobody else in the world donates to the extent that America does. If I am wrong, please show me the source.

[patcox2]

16. As you can see, I edited because I misunderstood your post.

As to foreign aid, thats easy:

"Almost a third of the way into the program, the latest available figures show that the percentage of United States income going to poor countries remains near rock bottom: 0.14 percent. Britain is at 0.34 percent, and France at 0.41 percent. (Norway and Sweden, to no one's surprise, are already exceeding the goal, at 0.92 percent and 0.79 percent.)

And we learned this week that in the last two months, the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping hungry nations become self-sufficient, and it has told charities like Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services that it won't honor earlier promises. Instead, administration officials said that most of the country's emergency food aid would go to places where there were immediate crises.

Something's not right here. The United States is the world's richest nation. Washington is quick to say that it contributes more money to foreign aid than any other country. But no one is impressed when a billionaire writes a $50 check for a needy family. The test is the percentage of national income we give to the poor, and on that basis this country is the stingiest in the Group of Seven industrialized nations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/opinion/23thurs1.html

[shady lane]

17. This is a poor measure of donations because

First of the United States has the highest per capita income of any of those other nations you named.

Second our population is many times the population of those you named.

Third none of those countries donate anywhere near the military transport and troop relief that we do.

Fourth watch who they are calling "poor" countries, because that excludes the many countries this writer does not consider "poor" but that we give millions too.

This writer has selectively picked the "poor" countries to make the numbers come out. Check any reputable source other than the UN.

[Prodemsouth]

22. Just curious... but would Israel on you list of "poor countries"

n/t

[Patiod]

19. We're slackers in terms of % of GDP given by our government

Yes, we're among the topdollar-wise (many years Japan gives more), but we're 22nd in terms of % of GNP that goes to foreign aid.
(data source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)

Plus, a lot of that aid is in the form of loans, which can end up doing more harm than good.

What's interesting is what the Global Issues website says about the generosity of the people of America, foundations and NGOs
"...is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion"

It's a complicated issue

[shady lane]

20. That is because we have the TOP GNP!

Good grief! That is like saying I should donate more than 10% of my income to a fund because I make more money than you!

Sorry, America tops the $$$ list because we have the highest production/earnings/efficiency rating of the world. But that also means it will show up as a smaller % of GNP.

Plus how about the value of all the military transporation and troops we lend? Norway has virtually NO military to help out as does Denmark. The United States contributes billions of dollars worth of aid & support to the UN and in relief with the use of our military assets.

[Prodemsouth]

27. Yes as a matter of fact many of us here do believe that. Where is this

10% figure coming from- your church?

[patcox2]

31. He doesn't understand that per capita or percentage GDP is only valid

Of course, comparing per capita giving or giving as a percentage of GDP is the only valid comparison, but he doesn't understand that, or else doesn't want to. There may be some cognitive dissonance, it may also be self-deception, necessary to validate his opinions. You know what they say, modern conservatives are embarked upon one of the most difficult intellectual endeavors of all time, the search for a moral justification for greed.

[Prodemsouth]

32. Do you smell a....?

n/t

[juliagoolia]

33. yes n/t

[Prodemsouth]

6. Careful you might get your wish. That would be a public relations

bonanza for the regime. Can you imagine how many national media whores would be lining up to praise Bush night and day. It would continue until he is flying back to Crawford in a blaze of glory in 2008. Sorry, I hope they are not that smart.

[DustMolecule]

11. Public relations bonanza or not.....it would be the 'right thing to do'

especially considering that voting fraud, the Plame affair, the Iraqmire or a whole host of other things will probably catch up to the shrub before his four years are up.

Even if it doesn't 'catch up to him', it STILL would be the right thing to do, imho.

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. I agree, it's the right thing to do regardless of politics

And it is so obviously the right thing to do that I think there will be a lot of pressure on him from many directions to do it to avoid a big public relations gaffe. How can he look sincere as a religious born-again if he spends such an obscene amount for a self-promoting party while spending less than half as much for desperately needed disaster relief? Even some of the wingnut fundies might wonder at that order of priorities, though the fact that most of the people needing the relief have brown or black skins and little interest in their version of "Christianity" might mitigate their concern.

[DustMolecule]

7. I agree 100%

I'm going to call my 2 Senators' and my representatives' offices right now! It IS disgusting to hold a $40 million party in the wake of this disaster and all it's suffering!

I hope this idea gets spread all over the web (and the US)!!!!

[benburch]

10. He won't be needing them anyway.

Because he will not be President a month from now.

[Prodemsouth]

21. What makes you think that? Clue us in please.

n/t

[benburch]

24. Haven't you been paying attention?

The electoral votes will not be certified. We have the necessary Senators and Representatives to prevent Bush from taking office.

[Prodemsouth]

29. Haha, lol and all that, ok thanks.

n/t

[benburch]

30. Hear me now, believe me later. nt

[cali]

12. Aburd suggestion

and total waste of time. The 40 mil is donated by private individuals. I may heartily disagree with their choice of "causes" to donate to, but it's their perogative. Of all the things that I find deplorable about bush, his decision to hold an inaugural ball, just doesn't rouse me to much indignation.

[patcox2]

14. Yes it is their prerogative.

And if they wish to spend their money on obscene luxury and frivolity in the face of a human tragedy greater than any in our lifetimes, they absolutely have a right to do that. I would never suggest otherwise.

Every person is free to be a selfish asshole. The Ayn Rand greed cult of assholes is based on that principle.

But I am also free to say that they are being callous, greedy, insensitive asssholes to engage in such an ostentatious display, too. I am free to think Randites are greedy assholes. And everyone, in the exercise of their freedom, must live with the consequences of how other people might react to their exercise of their right to be an asshole.

The purpose of my suggestion is just to shine a spotlight on the greed and insensitivity.

[DustMolecule]

15. How much of that 'private donation money' came from a portion of

the tax cut that shrub gave them? You don't think they were donating their hard-earned dollars do you?

For example, someone gets a $300,000 tax cut benefit, $150,000 gets put in their pocket and $150,000 gets 'donated' to 'worthy political causes' (which buys more influence for the 'donor') Quite a scam that top 1% has going there (with OUR money).

[Mistress Quickly]

34. Wait a minute

if they get the tax cut, it is less taxes they pay, how is that "our" money? Its just less of their own money they pay in taxes, right?

[bvar22]

36. We are in DEFICIT.

Every American citizen owns a piece of the National Debt. If the RICH pay less, you pay MORE.

Get it?

[flordehinojos]

18. making bush let go of 40 million dollars and a self deifying party is like

making him let go of his power grab ... he will do neither--and do you think the mainstream media cares what we say ... for how long have we been writing to them opposing bush, his power grab, his vote stealing, his policies, his very being ....... and they just keep deifying him even more ..... they, the MSM are looking to this self glorification, self-deifying party as much as bush himself is...they want to spread their bush propaganda. they don't give a darn.

[patcox2]

28. I don't expect him to do it. I only want to shine a light on him.

Turn his victory into a defeat. Ashes in his mouth. It has happened before, Hubris can be fatal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Okay, let's start a petition.

Anyone here know how to do that?

I'm giving this a kick.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. kick

[bvar22]

35. This serves to "showcase" Republican Values!

Republican Party, for Rich White Men Only



Print out 50 and hang in coffee shops, laundromats, grocery store BBs, bus stops, etc.

[ThomasJackson]

37. don't get it.

i guess the thing i don't get is, in the face of such mind boggling tragedy, people here IMMEDIATELY did 2 things:

1 - try to play it for Political advantage. ( why would that even enter your head at a time like this? ) you should be embarassed.

2 - ask SOMEONE ELSE to spend money to help. Why not just send your own money to help and be done with it?

[bvar22]

38. Embarrassed?......... No.

Willing to use ANY political advantage to combat the the descent of America into CorpoFascism?

Yes!

I wasn't always this way.

BTW: This IS a POLITICAL FORUM.

Get it yet?

[DustMolecule]

39. A lot of us have sent our own personal money already

If I had a hospital ship or tons of food/water supplies to donate, I'd do that too, but sadly, I don't. Bush on the other hand....

[Retrograde]

40. may be some legal issues, but

Legally, I don't think "Bush" (meaning whoever is actually running things) can take money donated for one purpose and use it for another but he could
-ask donors to make a matching donation to disaster relief
-return unspent funds and ask that they be redonated to disaster relief
-set an example by conspicuously donating some of his own fortune, and sending Laura and the twins to work for an aid agency (there're probably lots of office jobs for them - of course they'll work gratis to set a good example)